That article was written in 1999. Has the provision requiring the possibility of celebrating the new mass proved to be disastrous for the Fraternity? As far as I have heard, any Fraternity priest who has decided that he wants to use the new missal has left the society. The author was essentially predicting that the traditionalist institutes were going to be destroyed by the provision that they accept the liceity of concelebration. That has not happened. In fact, I think that very few have concelebrated even to this day, as no priest is ever really required to concelebrate any mass, even if there is a soft expectation that they will do so at the Chrism Mass. I know you’re not a fan of the ICKSP, but they shut down their apostolate at their US HQ in Chicago because they would not comply with Cupich’s demand to use the Novus ordo one Sunday a month. These groups are more committed than ever to tradition, I think, though they are also in a bind because they don’t want to lose what they have been given. I would hope that they realize that Rome is completely untrustworthy, and I agree with you that it is disconcerting that the SSPX has continued to deal with dishonest, double dealing, modernist Rome.

Lefebvre said that had he agreed to say even a single new mass, the entire drama of Econe would have been avoided, because it would have conveyed to Rome that the objection to the new mass was not a principled objection. That was just one different between Lefebvre and the FSSP: Tge helatter might not LIKE V2, the new Mass, etc, but are not opposed to them in principle, where Lefebvre and the SSPX were (the SSPX seems to have abandoned that former principled resistance, and handed that torch to Vigano).